Lawyers Debate Validity of Shield Claim

Shield v Ogg produces questions

By Emma De Nooy

On Tuesday, the attorneys involved in Shield v. Ogg provided new and intriguing information regarding the case. Both sides accused the other of being inconsistent. Caleb Smith, Esq., a legal representative for the plaintiff said, “Ogg contradicts himself.” His colleague, Haleigh Compton added, “His memory is flawed.” When asked about these statements, Justin Robe, a legal expert for the defense said, “No, he’s telling it as he sees it. Mr. Shield is the one showing inconsistencies.” Shield is asking the court for a prescript of easement. This would give him the right to continue using Ogg’s road to travel to his home as well as now allowing him to use Ogg’s road as an entrance/exit for the resort Shield is wishing to build. In order for Shield to obtain his prescript of easement, he must prove five things: he used the road openly, his use of the road was well known to those in the city, he used the road contrary to the road owner’s wishes, he has traversed the road frequently and he has done the previous four requirements for at least 15 years. Shield argues he has fully met all five qualifications; Ogg claims otherwise. As his road is the only available road to Shield’s house, Ogg says he gave Shield permission to use his road, but only as a way for Shield to get to his home, and not to use as he pleases. Therefore, the question arises: Should the prescript of easement be given to Shield but only for the manner Shield originally had used the road? Dakota Barnes, Esq., a legal representative for Owen Shield said, “Ogg has a reputation for causing disputes.” Krestian Robe, Esq., a legal expert for Ogg countered, “Mr. Ogg simply wants to preserve the right to his property.”